Of those leaning we get 5 leaning Republican and 3 leaning Democrat. If we assume that those go that way we would get:

47 Republican 45 Democrat 2 IND and 6 Toss Up.

If we assumed tossups split evenly we would have:

50 Republicans 48 Democrat and 2 Independents.

Can you explain how this is 47-47 from this site as I don't see that conclusion? Or is there some other assumption that is undeclared here?

Okay so, we add the two independents to the Democrats because they caucus with them (Bernie Sanders and Angus King). Ok so that works.

The thing is that of the Republican total there are more who are not safe in list than in the Democrat total -- based on this we might predict that the Democrats and allied independents are more likely to get 51-49 in their favour than the republicans to get 51-49 in theirs. Does that make sense?

I have waiting patiently for this to happen, as it was only a matter of time with Trump at the head of the GOP ticket. The Democrats are now leading in the race for control of the Senate. And remember if it's 50-50, the Vice-President breaks the tie.

I have waiting patiently for this to happen, as it was only a matter of time with Trump at the head of the GOP ticket. The Democrats are now leading in the race for control of the Senate. And remember if it's 50-50, the Vice-President breaks the tie.

Rather than the shilling nonsense and just utter garbage we hear most of the time on the cable news networks, like CNN, MSNBC and Fox, and most of the mainstream press, there actually are some political scientists that actually try to use science in their work. They include Josh Putnam, Sam Wang, Nate Silver, Larry Sabato, and 270towin.

I only discovered Sam Wang and Josh Punam within the past year and have been quite impressed with their respective analyses.

Sam Wang has been showing the Senate at 50-50 for quite some time, and he seems quite scientific with his forecasts, so for him to shift to 51-49 tells me this is significant.

This year Americans are faced with what appears to be 2 defective candidates for president, so I support Clinton not with enthusiasm, but only because she appears to be the lesser of 2 evils. My hunch is that she will win. Obama has had real difficulty getting legislation passed with a GOP controlled Congress, so hopefully Clinton will have at least a Dem Senate to work with, although chances of a complete sweep of Congress for the Democrats are probably next to nil.

Gotta love democracy. Whoever has the biggest cash wad usually wins. And then we wonder why we end up with the one percenters for country leaders who promote and pass legislation that benefit themselves and their fellow one percenters, eh! Never underestimate man's stupidity when it comes to politics and a few other things as well.

Senate Republicans had been doing a pretty solid job of maintaining their distance from GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump by running their own campaign that focused largely on more local issues or those issues that motivate their base. The strategy was working fine and it looked as if Republicans would be able to keep their losses low. That is until October 7 when The Washington Post reported on the existence of the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump described sexually assaulting women. Then things started to unravel, albeit slowly.

Assuming that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the party needs four seats to tie the chamber, leaving the Vice President as the tie breaking vote. For much of the cycle, we have expected Democrats to score a net gain of between four and six seats. Since the release of the Access Hollywood tape, Senate Republicans have seen their fortunes dip, particularly in states like Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Pennsylvania where Clinton has established a lead. In fact, of the Senate seats in the Toss Up column, Trump only leads in Indiana and Missouri where both Republicans are running a few points behind him.

Early voting is underway in 27 states, so Republicans don’t really have much time to turn things around, and Trump won’t be any help, especially his campaign doesn’t really have a ground game to speak of. The GOP’s only hope is to start running a checks-and-balances message, or more blatantly, a don’t-give-Clinton-a-blank-check message to motivate their base, particularly what one strategist called “casual Republicans,” to the polls. We are starting to see that message in some red and purple states as candidates work to tie Democratic candidate to Clinton.